FAQ and Rules | You will have to register before you can post. Don't use an AOL e-mail address to register. | Account activation will take a few days. Posting privileges to the Buying and Selling sub-forums will be granted 10 days after registration.

Do you have any personal gaming "rules" you adhere to?

I was wondering if anyone else has any 'rules' that they adhere to when it comes to gaming. Not collecting rules mind you, but actual game playing rules. Thinking about it, I actually have quite a few that I don't think the average gamer would really care about, but I hold true too. For example:

I never continue in arcade games - That is, games in the actual arcade (or emulators), or arcade style games on home consoles. Nothing about it appeals to me. I feel like it's cheating and/or admitting defeat. I always played games until I was good at them, and I wouldn't feel like I was getting my quarter's worth if I continued. There are some games that people are amazed that I can end on a single credit that I don't think it's a big deal, like Smash T.V., and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (granted TMNT is far more difficult for me to end). I think that people just got into the habit of plunking in another quarter, so they never really honed their skills enough to end games on a single credit.

I never play games in a series out of order - If I can help it, I never play games in a series without playing the previous installments. I don't necessarily have to complete them (I hated Silent Hill 4: The Room, for example, and never ended it before playing Origins), but I do feel a need to play them at least.

Some exceptions are games that are either offshoots (like 'Tactics games), games that don't have a numeric series number in the title (Resident Evil: Code Veronica was the first RE I played for example). Or games that I'm introduced to really late in. If I enjoy them though, I go back and start at the earliest installment.

I don't use game enhancing devices - Unless it's something that I'm using to disable a regional lock, or a memory manager, I don't use things like Game Sharks or Game Genies. Cheat codes that are built into the game are a different matter. I still don't use them during normal play through, either, but I've never use an external device to enhance or cheat at a game. It's just not my thing.

I don't consult F.A.Q.s or strategy guides - Unless I've already completed a game, or I've practically shelved it because of some obscure dead end. Actually, that's not entirely true. If I'm not that into a game (by "that into" I mean that I'm not all that crazy about the game, it's just 'Meh'), but I've invested a little time in, and I get stuck, I'll consult an online F.A.Q., but otherwise, I'll just tough it out. I usually only consult an F.A.Q. for a game that I'm really into to see if I've hit a glitch, and that's what's preventing me from advancing. Or maybe I don't understand the controls for a certain area.

I don't play games on the easy settings - Sometimes a game will suggest that you try an easier setting if you've dead 'x' amount of times (CAPCOM loves doing this); especially if it happens consecutively. Fuck_that_shit. That actually makes me want to play it through on a harder setting, in defiance. I know that the developers were trying to make it so that everyone could enjoy the game, but I can't help but take it as an insult, or rather, a challenge.

I don't kill 'innocent' NPCs or animals in games - Now, there are a few exceptions to this rule as well. I AM guilty of killing rats and ravens in Resident Evil 4 and 5, but that might have more to do with being attacked by crows in earlier RE games. Then again, I shoot the fish too in 5, so maybe I'm more of a bastard than I realize. I suppose there's an animal hierarchy I subscribe to, and fish, rats, and birds are on the lower end of the pecking order, because I would never shoot the larger, caged animals, like the goats and nutria, in the labs in Resident Evil 5. And anyway, if the rats, ravens, and fish were so innocent, why would they drop stolen treasure, and grenades, when you killed them?

I NEVER kill nonthreatening humans that I don't need to in games, though. It's just not something that appeals to me. Even cowering enemies, like the frightened Nazis that cringe in BloodRayne, or the Das Lof Gang members who 'give up' in Narc (the arcade game) I leave alone...unless I'm out of handcuffs.

Gaming Honor!

A similar question was recently asked on Reddit. A guy asked what the community thought about using cheats or glitches to complete a game. This was my response:

My stance on the "right" way to play a game is to play it through in its entirety with no outside interference the first time through.

Why? Because... If a friend tells me how to solve a puzzle, then what have I learned? Nothing. What have I overcome? Nothing. If I use a strategy guide to avoid having to figure something else myself then what have I achieved? Nothing.

As a child I once spent 2 weeks screwing around in a Link's Awakening dungeon because I couldn't figure out how to make this one column fall but when it finally clicked I was so freakin' pumped. That victory would not have been there if I'd have looked it up online.

Honestly I think how one handles games can be an indicator of how one handles life. I have worked my butt off to get to the "next level" in the corporate world. My buddy (who has used walkthroughs for every game ever on the first playthrough) is still screwing around in a crappy job he hates making next to nothing wishing for better but unwilling to face any challenge that might better his life.

When people cheat in anything they're just cheating themselves out of the satisfaction of knowing they could've conquered it themselves, and if a game can't be beaten without a strategy guide, then it's probably a pretty miserable game and probably not worth playing if it's designed that poorly.

I think glitches and game genie codes and all that are a blast, but not until after I've beaten the game.

Using cheats or walkthroughs before beating the game at least once is like watching the special features on a DVD/BluRay before you've watched the film; it ruins the experience.

I have a rule NOW where I stick to one single game per console (DS, 360, PSP, NES, SNES etc.) at a time. I start it, and then play it until I finish it. Sometimes this takes months.

This was an attempt to go back to my younger days when I would only have 1 game at a time and then master it. But as I got older and games came rapidly I ended up playing each shortly and never finishing them or really getting to know/enjoy them. Now I try to savor the whole thing. That being said, if I don't like a game, I have no hesitation dropping it and moving on.

Originally Posted by Emperor Megas

[*]I don't use game enhancing devices - Unless it's something that I'm using to disable a regional lock, or a memory manager, I don't use things like Game Sharks or Game Genies. Cheat codes that are built into the game are a different matter. I still don't use them during normal play through, either, but I've never use an external device to enhance or cheat at a game. It's just not my thing.

I have zero problem with this. I played and beat SNES SF2 several times on all characters. It was great to use a Pro Action Replay to enable character vs. Character. Or I've completed Super Punch Out multiple times and can finish most matches in seconds. Well in that case I have no problem messing around and making my guy have unlimited KO punches. I mastered the game already. It's just goofing around.

I don't consult F.A.Q.s or strategy guides

Agreed. I just revisit it over and over until I figure it out.

I don't kill 'innocent' NPCs or animals in games

What is "innocent" in a video game anyway? It's a video game. i.e. Really no different than deleting a couple of letters while you're typing text

I NEVER kill nonthreatening humans that I don't need to in games, though. It's just not something that appeals to me. Even cowering enemies, like the frightened Nazis that cringe in BloodRayne, or the Das Lof Gang members who 'give up' in Narc (the arcade game) I leave alone...unless I'm out of handcuffs.

I guess we just see things differently. You see "humans". But I see code executed on a screen that render a human graphic, but could just as easily be a banana or tennis racket for all it's worth

I will kill innocent NPC's if they deserve it (and if it won't alter the entire game). For example, I played a game recently (won't tell which one to avoid spoilers) that had an optional quest that required me to rescue a guy from captors. The quest has you rescue him but he is roughed up a little bit before you get to him. After you rescue him (in an optional quest, mind you) he gets mad at you for not showing up 5 minutes earlier. Well, after saving his life by my choice I decided to eliminate the non-grateful NPC. Hey, I know they are ones and zeros but I also know that a movie is just a movie. Part of the fun is letting go and getting involved in the story

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.

-I rarely continue in arcade games
-I don't use game enhancing devices
-I don't consult F.A.Q.s or strategy guides
-I don't play games on the easy settings
-I have a rule NOW where I stick to one single game per console (DS, 360, PSP, NES, SNES etc.) at a time. I start it, and then play it until I finish it.

All these right here to some degree.

Arcade game or not, if it's a game I'm good at, I rarely continue. If I somehow happen to lose all my lives without finishing the original Castlevania, Mega Man, etc, that's the end of the game. I either beat it or I don't. If it's something I've never played or I just suck balls at it, then yes I'll continue.

I don't use game enhancing devices except to check out stuff like the debug menu or I want to mess around in a game and keep characters you usually don't get to keep. Like Jowy on Suikoden 2, Sephiroth on Final Fantasy 7, etc.

I will always attempt the game on normal first. I won't change it to easy unless it's frustratingly difficult.

I usually stick with a single game to completion before moving on to something else. This is usually, as sometimes if a game drags on too long and I've wanted to end it quite awhile ago then I'll do so at that point. There's also times I start a game with someone else only for them to quit playing as well, so I also don't continue my game.

On RPGs, I grind as little as possible because if it were too easy then it wouldn't really be any fun. I'll only grind end game to max out my characters(which is rare for me,) or if I get to a point where the game becomes too difficult and you're pretty much required to grind.

I guess we just see things differently. You see "humans". But I see code executed on a screen that render a human graphic, but could just as easily be a banana or tennis racket for all it's worth

No, I see code as well, but that code is made to represent a human being. That's what the developers were trying to portray after all. I don't abstain from dispatching them because I think that the characters they represent are real, I don't kill them because I have no inclination to harm innocent people in the first place, whether real or imagined. I wouldn't feel an urge to kill a tennis racket or a banana peel either for that matter. It's just in my nature.

If you or someone else does feel the urge to off NPCs (needlessly I mean, when it doesn't serve any practical purpose), I'd imagine it's because you get some sense of pleasure out of it. I'm missing that part of the brain or something that makes that sort of thing appealing, though, because to me, harming innocents is off putting. This mainly applies to situations where there's no comic intent by design, and/or modern games where realism and immersion is the desired goal.

I don't play any modern, realistic warfare games either, because that sort of thing is really off putting to me (well...and boring, too). All those Medal of Honor, Modern Warfare and Tom Clancy games, they do nothing for me at all. I don't think anything is wrong with those kinds of games mind you, and I certainly don't think anything's wrong with enjoying them either. They're probably excellent games, just not my cut of tea.

Now I play plenty of violent games, but I'm more into stylized, over-the-top, fantasy type violence. Like putting demons and ninjas to the sword, that sort of thing. Mowing down realistically portrayed enemy soldiers with an M-16 in a gritty, realistic conflict, centered mostly on politics, isn't my idea of fun. I even try to kill as few people as possible in games like Metal Gear Solid, and Metal Gear is about as stylized and over-the-top as it gets for a realistic type of game.

I have a rule NOW where I stick to one single game per console (DS, 360, PSP, NES, SNES etc.) at a time. I start it, and then play it until I finish it. Sometimes this takes months.

This was an attempt to go back to my younger days when I would only have 1 game at a time and then master it. But as I got older and games came rapidly I ended up playing each shortly and never finishing them or really getting to know/enjoy them. Now I try to savor the whole thing. That being said, if I don't like a game, I have no hesitation dropping it and moving on.

THIS! Oh my gosh this mentality has made my game playing experience SO MUCH more enjoyable... sticking with a game until you either beat it or exhaust it as much as possible. It helps for me too that all I play these days is the SNES (so I only pick which game to play next, not which system either). It makes playing games so much more satisfying, seeing a game through to the end (or as much as humanly possible).

I also try to play games (in a series) in order. I don't like the idea of playing possibly the superior sequel first and later going through the inferior prequel... it would just feel too weird.

[*]I don't kill 'innocent' NPCs or animals in games - Now, there are a few exceptions to this rule as well. I AM guilty of killing rats and ravens in Resident Evil 4 and 5, but that might have more to do with being attacked by crows in earlier RE games. Then again, I shoot the fish too in 5, so maybe I'm more of a bastard than I realize. I suppose there's an animal hierarchy I subscribe to, and fish, rats, and birds are on the lower end of the pecking order, because I would never shoot the larger, caged animals, like the goats and nutria, in the labs in Resident Evil 5. And anyway, if the rats, ravens, and fish were so innocent, why would they drop stolen treasure, and grenades, when you killed them?

I NEVER kill nonthreatening humans that I don't need to in games, though. It's just not something that appeals to me. Even cowering enemies, like the frightened Nazis that cringe in BloodRayne, or the Das Lof Gang members who 'give up' in Narc (the arcade game) I leave alone...unless I'm out of handcuffs.[/list]

Haha, I'm the same. I just can't bear being an asshole in games. There are some games that I've beaten multiple times like Chrono Trigger where I still haven't picked some of the dialogue responses just because I always have to pick the nicest choice. Or that trial, I didn't get it perfect on my first or second playthroughs, but now I can't do a single thing that they'd judge as improper. Sometimes in games I want to see all the different branches of a dialogue tree so I'll save right before, but the one I keep will always be the nicest one (unless I have to pick something else to trigger something worthwhile; like I've yet to permanently keep Albel in Star Ocean 3 because you have to tell him that you dislike him or something like that).

But, yeah, when it comes to killing things, I can't kill innocent people, and I especially feel guilty if I kill innocent animals, even if by accident (that happened sometimes in Infinite Undiscovery, and I still didn't want to do it despite getting item creation materials). I'll always give my fiance a hard time if he kills the animals in Resident Evil 4, and we even had a conversation once about which animals had to be humanely killed, haha. If it looked like the animal had any chance of escaping, he'd leave them be, but if they were trapped and we knew the town would later get overrun with zombies, we had to save them from an even worse demise, haha. Of course, they had to be killed in the most humane way possible, with a shot to the head, rather than slashing them with the knife or something.

Hell, we'll take it one step farther and even arbitrarily pick out legitimate enemies to leave be. Like if the enemy isn't an active threat, sometimes my fiance or I will tell the other "Hey, he's a nice guy. Just leave him alone. He's only trying to... [insert enemy's innocent motives here]", haha. And if I kill the enemy, my fiance will be like "Why'd you do it?" and try to make me feel guilty.

Indeed! If some crappy designer is going to throw some boneheaded piece of game design into something I put my time any money into, screw 'em! I'm not going to waste my time stressing myself out over his mistake because of some made-up rule I'm trying to adhere to.

If there's any rule I abide by these days, it's to not spend more than $20 on a game when I still have piles and piles of them sitting around unopened. Sadly, I had to break that rule a few times recently – Ghost Trick and 999 just seemed that much more likely to vanish forever than to drop to a convenient price. And I'm probably going to do the same to Radiant Historia, sigh.

"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)

I'm a grown up person, that means i obey rules and regulations all the time, why would i want to set myself rules during my valuable play time?

I don't 'set my rules', really...it's just how I play/am. It's like saying I have a rule this rule that I don't kick puppies down the street. I suppose that is one of my rules, but it's nothing that I really 'set myself' to.

Adjust difficulty level for a balanced challenge. If it's too easy, adjust to make it more of a challenge. If it's too hard (usually this means unable to get beyond first couple levels), adjust to make it easier. Use cheat codes if need be.

If I'm stuck to the point of giving up after multiple attempts, consult F.A.Q. or watch YouTube walkthrough, but only to move beyond the point of stuckiture.

Play only one RPG or strategy at a time, but intersperse it with unlimited play of other genres such as arcade and shooter.

No, I see code as well, but that code is made to represent a human being. That's what the developers were trying to portray after all. I don't abstain from dispatching them because I think that the characters they represent are real, I don't kill them because I have no inclination to harm innocent people in the first place, whether real or imagined. I wouldn't feel an urge to kill a tennis racket or a banana peel either for that matter. It's just in my nature.

So is that across the board or does the sophistication of the graphics come into play? For example, would you abstain from playing an actual arcade version of Death Race 2000 under the same reasoning? Just curious...

Personally, I pretty much see zero difference from it, and running over a pedestrian in GTA. i.e. No matter how good the graphics are it's it's all just blips and bloops at the end of the day. And any moral trigger I have against "harming" others never even comes into play.. because why should it? It's a video game.

But yes I understand it's just the personal rule you have and that's fine. Just offering casual thoughts on the other side of the coin.

Back in the day when I smoked, I use to deny myself a cigarette (left or right handed) until I finally defeated whatever opponent in Street Fighter Alpha 3 was kicking the sh*t out of me repeatedly. My stress from nicotine withdrawal, compounded by failure on top of failure, made the release granted by my eventual victory and reward cigarette o' so sweet.

Another "rule" or, rather, light-hearted ritual dealt with playing Tekken 5 with an old friend/adversary of mine. We use to petition his two cats to take sides or grant us their supernatural favor in our matches as if they were some kind of gods of war capable of delivering a devotee in the day of digital battle. We never really offered them anything substantial like incense or even something they might have given a damn about like an offering of catnip; we just kinda sputtered desperate pleas couched in faux-religious words for help while they looked at us like we were crazy.

So is that across the board or does the sophistication of the graphics come into play? For example, would you abstain from playing an actual arcade version of Death Race 2000 under the same reasoning? Just curious...

Personally, I pretty much see zero difference from it, and running over a pedestrian in GTA. i.e. No matter how good the graphics are it's it's all just blips and bloops at the end of the day.

No, I don't think the stuff I have an aversion to is the same as Death Race 2000 for a couple if reasons. You're not running over humans in Death Race 2000, you're running over gremlins (yeah, right), but more importantly, running over the 'creatures' in DR2K was clearly intended to be humorous -- and the crudeness of it all was indeed funny. The (pointedly Christian) head stones, the horrible, digital death squeals, the herky-jerky controls. It's a scream (literally).

Like I said, if it's something that's supposed to be comedic, by design, and it's more silly than sadistic, I don't have a problem with it. I thought it was the funniest Goddamned thing ever the first time I played Gangster Town on the SEGA Master System for example. It's a light gun game where you kill gangsters, and when they die, their spirits leave their bodies, sprout wings, and fly up to the heavens...but you can actually shoot down their fucking angels and they go plummeting back down to the Earth. Hilarious!

And any moral trigger I have against "harming" others never even comes into play.. because why should it? It's a video game.

You see, that's the thing you're maybe not getting, and what separates us on this matter. The whole "why should a moral trigger come into play?" thing. This suggests that you need a reason to refrain from doing things like arbitrarily killing NPCs in games. I don't. For me, NOT wanting to do that sort of thing is my default setting. I need a reason TO harm innocent NPCs, animals, etc. in games, the same as in life. For me it's not "why shouldn't I"? It's "why would I"?

I don't know, it's just how I am. I wasn't one of those kids who had to be taught to be sympathetic, generous, and kind, I was already that way. It's just my nature. Things like purely sadistic behavior and wanton cruelty just don't appeal to me. It's why I can't watch (or enjoy) shit like Hostel. It's off putting to me. On the flip side I can watch shit like Kill Bill and Takashi Miike films all day (and they're about as sadistic as they come) because they're stylized, intentionally humorous, and completely over the top.

But yes I understand it's just the personal rule you have and that's fine. Just offering casual thoughts on the other side of the coin.

It's cool. I agree that it's just a game at the end of the day. Just bleeps and blips ultimately.

-Don't exploit a design flaw through first play through. (FF8 is a great example of this)

I have only one that applies to competitive multiplayer games. I don't mind if my competitors use them but I tend to reject things I consider personally overpowered. Things like certain characters in fighting games, certain powerups in racing games, and things like Killstreaks. I never feel the need to limit or berate my opponents for their choices I just tend to stay way from them myself and try (usually succeed ) to defeat them with other means.